Alabama Senate Approves Bill to Abolish Marriage Licensing

a reply to: Realtruth


I knew it then... But was pressured into the license. Never wanted it. Now I just want the State out.

It is a bummer this bill may have died in the House.

originally posted by: J.B. Aloha
a reply to: Realtruth

I knew it then... But was pressured into the license. Never wanted it. Now I just want the State out.

It is a bummer this bill may have died in the House.

When a marriage is dissolved by the state, it still needs to be dissolved separately in the church.

You can file for a divorce in the state, and still be marry in the eyes of the church.

originally posted by: Kali74
Now I remember what's so familiar about this. When public schools were ordered to be desegregated, Alabama shut down public schools.

I think you might be exaggerating Alabama's reaction to desegregation. There were several schools where the African American students were turned away, causing the Federal Government to step in and force the issue. Not all the schools, nor were the schools shut down.

Let's not cloud the issue with misrembering the past and stay focus on the situation now.

Really what it is doing is making a person jump through more red tape to get married if they fit into a minority demographic. Instead of just going down to the local courthouse and signing a couple documents, you now have to find someone who won't turn you away under the pretense of "respect for religious beliefs". It is still a contract whether you call it a license or something else. It is still going to be valid in court or anything else the government requires it for.

What I really want to know is, why is everyone who was against gay marriage altogether 3 days ago suddenly OK with this solution? And why did the Supreme Court's decision need any modification at all?

I'm feeling this "ah ha!" moment coming on, and I hope it isn't true. Did gay marriage opponents think all along that homosexuals wanted to force themselves into hostile churches to get married? Is that what they're going to pretend this has all been about?

I figured this would happen.

Ugh just let the LGBT community be and worry less about what people do in the bedroom. The government doesnt have the right to tell you how to live your life. In the long run there's going to be bigger fish to fry. LIke the economy.

I agree. You can't force these issues on people it just makes it worse. Instead let the states choose and it's not a big deal getting married in a state that agrees with your preference. Political correctness in the USA is a plague.....I understand gay couple have a right to be able to marry, but to force states that don't want to do it is not fair. It's hypocritical to force people to do it, just like gay people being denied marriage now they deny everyone the right to deny.

a reply to: NiZZiM

But then it wasn't recognized in other States, how come states didn't have to vote on Heterosexual Marriage? we are all People who deserve the same Equal rights, privileges and protections...

would you be ok with a state banning a religion?

originally posted by: AboveBoard
?

Ok.

I do hope, however, that the "marriage contract" will be given the same weight in other states as it is in Alabama, otherwise there could be a boatload of problems stemming from this that are yet to be seen. ??? I don't know the answer to that one.

- AB

Congress prescribes the manner in which states are required to accept official actions / documents / actions from other states.

Full faith and credit only works if the US Congress says it works. If other states don't recognize this action then you are back to square one.

originally posted by: NiZZiM
I agree. You can't force these issues on people it just makes it worse. Instead let the states choose and it's not a big deal getting married in a state that agrees with your preference. Political correctness in the USA is a plague.....I understand gay couple have a right to be able to marry, but to force states that don't want to do it is not fair. It's hypocritical to force people to do it, just like gay people being denied marriage now they deny everyone the right to deny.

Let's try your argument substituting giving citizens the right to vote.

You can't force these issues on people, it just makes it worse. Instead let the states choose and it's not a big deal for people to get to vote in a state that agrees with it. I understand citizens have the right to vote, but to force states that don't want to let them is not fair...

Or how about the right own a gun:

You can't force these issues on people, let the states choose and it's not a big deal for people to get to own guns in a state that agrees with it. I understand that citizens have the right to bear arms, but to force states that don't want to let them is not fair.

Or pick any other subject that is personally important to you that you feel you have a constitutional right to. Owning property, being able to choose your own way of making a living, the right to privacy, the right to worship in whatever church you want, etc. The right to choose your own spouse is just as important to a gay person as it would be to you, or are YOU okay with the state dictating who you can choose as your spouse?

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes
What I really want to know is, why is everyone who was against gay marriage altogether 3 days ago suddenly OK with this solution? And why did the Supreme Court's decision need any modification at all?

I'm feeling this "ah ha!" moment coming on, and I hope it isn't true. Did gay marriage opponents think all along that homosexuals wanted to force themselves into hostile churches to get married? Is that what they're going to pretend this has all been about?

Actually, yes, it is what it has been about. And that is what we think the agenda is. Go back and look long and hard at the way people target religion in their pro-gay marriage posts. Understand that all you have to do to earn this wrath is say you believe that marriage is between a man and woman in reflection of what both God and Christ said; you can even say that you aren't trying to stop gays from having their unions. You just want to be left out. And you still come under wrath.

And then tell me there is no grounds to be worried. I see no reason to feel that conscientious objection will be allowed, even inside the church, no matter what the Constitution says.

a reply to: kaylaluv

Voting and marriage are apples and oranges.

And I don't see where this strips just gays of marriage. It strips everyone.

I find it surprising that some still think that states should be able to decide which citizens should get to vote and which should not. The equality thing sure is a thorn in the side of that point of view.

Unless there's some nasty middle finger loophole hidden somewhere, I don't see a problem with this. I got lippy over the required vows and probably made the clerk question why she even had the job by the time I was done arguing. All we wanted to do was sign the stupid paperwork & get on with it, no jump through "repeat after me" hoops. Yeah, yeah, it was just a couple of minutes, but it seemed like pointless minutes considering the whole point for us was to just get legally married. If we'd wanted to exchange vows, we would have on our own time & terms, I've never understood why the government regards vows as mandatory.

Unless I'm mistaken, this law seems to do away with that aspect, and leaves it exactly as it should be for a government license -- signatures on a contract. The aspect of choosing the person witnessing is a nice perk. Not entirely sure that's necessary on a legality level, but whatever. I would have figured they'd go with making sure you can perform your job under any circumstances in the pre-hire interviewing process before that.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: kaylaluv

Voting and marriage are apples and oranges.

And I don't see where this strips just gays of marriage. It strips everyone.

I believe the poster I was responding to was making a general comment on states being forced to legalize gay marriage.

Pick any other issue besides voting that you feel you have a right as a citizen to partake in. Should any state be able to take that right away from you? For example, should a state be able to force you to choose from a specific pool of men to marry, and if you happen to fall in love with a man that doesn't fall into that state-dictated pool, you don't get to marry him? Because that in essence is what was happening to gays. They were told that they were perfectly free to get a marriage license, as long as it was to marry someone of the opposite gender (the state-dictated pool of choices).

a reply to: ketsuko

Broken logic. The reason legal unions were rejected was because they don't confer the the same legal benefits and protections that marriage does, and when people tried to change that... to make them the same, the zealots got in an uproar over that too and stopped them. So the push for marriage got stronger.

The reason religion is called out on the topic is because it's always been the religious fighting to keep gay people from living together, becoming families and doing it with the same legal protections that straight people have. The fight has never been to invade your churches/mosques/temples.

Religious institutions and clergy are separate from the government and are allowed to discriminate, they are not required to respect the Constitution. The government is bound by the Constitution and therefor the 14th Amendment, religious objection should never factor into performing functions of the government.

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes
What I really want to know is, why is everyone who was against gay marriage altogether 3 days ago suddenly OK with this solution? And why did the Supreme Court's decision need any modification at all?

I'm feeling this "ah ha!" moment coming on, and I hope it isn't true. Did gay marriage opponents think all along that homosexuals wanted to force themselves into hostile churches to get married? Is that what they're going to pretend this has all been about?

I've always been of the opinion that the state should get out of marriage altogether and only get involved where civil contract law is concerned.

Want to share your fiances and life and property with someone else and give them life and death decision making over you and allow them access to your medical situation? Write out a contract. A 5 minute ceremony shouldn't cut it.

originally posted by: NavyDoc


I've always been of the opinion that the state should get out of marriage altogether and only get involved where civil contract law is concerned.

Want to share your fiances and life and property with someone else and give them life and death decision making over you and allow them access to your medical situation? Write out a contract. A 5 minute ceremony shouldn't cut it.

Now that would be logical, and also if that happened courts, lawyers, and gold diggers would profit from marriages.

Marriage is by far the most unstable incorporation that anyone could enter into these days, especially with the divorce rate being 60% +. People would have better odds at the craps table in Vegas.

originally posted by: Realtruth

originally posted by: NavyDoc


I've always been of the opinion that the state should get out of marriage altogether and only get involved where civil contract law is concerned.

Want to share your fiances and life and property with someone else and give them life and death decision making over you and allow them access to your medical situation? Write out a contract. A 5 minute ceremony shouldn't cut it.

Now that would be logical, and also if that happened courts, lawyers, and gold diggers would profit from marriages.

They already do.

If every "marriage" required a prenuptial contract, the unexpected awfulness at the end would be abated and perhaps people would give it a lot more thought in the beginning.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Realtruth

originally posted by: NavyDoc


I've always been of the opinion that the state should get out of marriage altogether and only get involved where civil contract law is concerned.

Want to share your fiances and life and property with someone else and give them life and death decision making over you and allow them access to your medical situation? Write out a contract. A 5 minute ceremony shouldn't cut it.

Now that would be logical, and also if that happened courts, lawyers, and gold diggers would profit from marriages.

They already do.

If every "marriage" required a prenuptial contract, the unexpected awfulness at the end would be abated and perhaps people would give it a lot more thought in the beginning.

I rarely ever agree with you, but I agree with this. It may not reduce divorces (doesn't seem to with celebrities), but it sure makes things go smoother during a divorce, if everything is agreed upon at the very beginning.